RE: XML attribute

From: Ron Jacobs (rjacobs@gforce.com)
Date: Fri, Sep 22 2000

  • Next message: Clemm, Geoff: "RE: XML attribute"

    Message-ID: <CC2AF3B5727BD411907F00A0CC63594C0F095F@exchange.gforcesystems.com>
    From: Ron Jacobs <rjacobs@gforce.com>
    To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
    Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 11:29:31 -0700
    Subject: RE: XML attribute
    
    This attribute, now named if-unsupported, still is not in the DAV: name
    space in the 08.2 draft. Why would this be the only name introduced by
    DeltaV not to be in the DAV:
    name space?
    
    BTW, I like the new name.
    
    Thanks, Ron
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Geoffrey M. Clemm [mailto:geoffrey.clemm@rational.com]
    Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 9:38 AM
    To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
    Subject: Re: XML attribute
    
    
    
    The trouble with "optional" or "obligatory" (or "required") is that
    the attribute doesn't indicate whether the element is optional or
    required, but rather what the server should do if it doesn't understand
    the element type (where the choices are "ignore" or "abort", or "ok"
    or "error").
    
    Cheers,
    Geoff
    
       From: Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com
       Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 15:26:57 +0100
    
    
    
    
       <ron>
          Section 3.1: To me, "unknown" sounds more like one of the potential
          values for this attribute. Maybe the name could be "if-unknown"
          (which I don't really like either) or something that indicates that
          the value is a choice to be taken conditionally.
       </ron>
    
       <geoff>
       Anything that can be done to improve the name would be good.
       Between "unknown" and "if-unknown", I probably prefer "unknown",
       but I agree that "unknown" is not the optimal choice.  Suggestions
       welcomed!
       </geoff>
    
       How about 'optional' or 'obligatory' with a "T" or "F" value?
    
       Tim